Why the hate for the scientific method?
>>527293
>le pop-sci guy
>>527293
Go read Feyerabend.
Then come back
>lessen the suffering of others
Wow what a deep and unique ethical perspective! There's never any moments where you would have to choose between harming someone for the greater benefit of society or protecting a person's individual liberties!
>>527310
I have. What's your point?
Push-back against really simple points that have gotten too popular, largely by American Christian fanatics who don't realize they're fanatics and who have a huge basin of high and low level seemingly very intelligent content to one-up "those atheists" with, but don't realize they are actually unpaid shills in a gran scheme of anti-intellectualism and mob mentality playing out across generations
tl;dr retards
>>527338
> Why was the Red Khmer considered bad people?
> Look up the field of death
> I have. What's your point?
Hurr durr
>>527343
Name dropping intellectuals isn't gonna do it. On /his/, You're supposed to provide high level of discourse with sources to specific paragraphs.
>>527349
But in this case, the person involved (the person asking and the person responding) have read his works, meaning that they know what his critic. And his critique nails a lot if not all reasons as of why people who don't like the scientific method doesn't like it.
If he said "no I haven't, what is his reasoning", it would be something else.
>>527359
Still
>Go read Feyerabend fagget, derp
Is a low level of discourse that you won't hear used in any moderated debate.
>>527338
>What's your point?
Then you ought to know there's no hatred for the scientific method.
>>527359
How do we know that any of them has read Feyerabend and not just name-dropping?
>>527366
>Why the hate for the scientific method?
>Is a low level of discourse that you won't hear used in any moderated debate.
Fuck off OP.
>>527366
>>527384
Fair point. Feyerabend is a very radical philosopher of science and introduced the idea of epistemological anarchy. He wrote a book called "Against science" that aims to break down current day methodology.
As always, stanford is a great source for everything philosophy related:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feyerabend/#2.13
> The book contained many of the themes mentioned so far in this essay, sprinkled into a case study of the transition from geocentric to heliocentric astronomy. But whereas he had previously been arguing in favour of methodology (a “pluralistic” methodology, that is), he had now become dissatisfied with any methodology. He emphasised that older scientific theories, like Aristotle's theory of motion, had powerful empirical and argumentative support, and stressed, correlatively, that the heroes of the scientific revolution, such as Galileo, were not as scrupulous as they were sometimes represented to be. He portrayed Galileo as making full use of rhetoric, propaganda, and various epistemological tricks in order to support the heliocentric position. The Galileo case is crucial for Feyerabend, since the “scientific revolution” is his paradigm of scientific progress and of radical conceptual change, and Galileo is his hero of the scientific revolution. He also sought further to downgrade the importance of empirical arguments by suggesting that aesthetic criteria, personal whims and social factors have a far more decisive role in the history of science than rationalist or empiricist historiography would indicate.
As long as we gain knowledge from it, any method is as valid as any other. He also argues for the democratisations of the school system where parents would allow kids to take courses in witchcraft and magic.
He is influential and I know I had to read parts from "Against science" when I took my Bsc in Sociology (even if he, among my peers, was considered someone playing the devils advocate for the sake of it)
>>527347
this is just false-flagging now
>>527351
>>527453
>there's no way people from my ideology could be overwhelmingly retarded
>it must be false flagging!
>conspiracy!
>alex jones is just controlled opposition guys
>>527456
Have you read Feyerabend on the point? No, of course not. Didn't even bother with the IEP or SEP.
>>527456
I never said he was good and not batshit insane, but he's the charismatic reason (ironic enough considering his position) why people hold "anti-methodological" views.
>>527467
That and Popper's fucking useless in practice.
